March 2008

Case Ref: FS50101351
Date: 31/03/2008
Public Authority: Brightlingsea Town Council
Summary: The complainant requested the Council to release a copy of the report submitted by the chartered surveyor which undertook the rent review of the caravan park at which she resides. The Council considered the request and refused to disclose the information citing sections 42 and 43 of the Act. The requested information is made up of 17 separate documents, each labelled 1 to 17. Documents 1, 2, 5 and 11 were later released by the Council; the Commissioner has therefore reviewed the remaining information and considered the Council’s application of the exemptions cited. Concerning the application of section 42, the Commissioner has concluded that this exemption applies to documents 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption for these documents. For the remaining documents, those labelled 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 17; the Commissioner has considered the Council’s application of section 43 of the Act. He has concluded that, with the exception of some information contained in documents 10 and 12, section 43 of the Act does not apply. The Commissioner has therefore ordered the Council to disclose these documents to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice. For the small amount of information contained in documents 10 and 12, the Commissioner has concluded that section 43 of the Act is engaged and that the public interest rests in maintaining this exemption for this specific information. The Commissioner has therefore requested the Council to release redacted versions of these documents to the complainant within 35 days of this Notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50101351

Case Ref: FS50130517
Date: 31/03/2008
Public Authority: House of Commons
Summary: The complainant wrote to the House of Commons to request the amounts spent by seven MPs since May 2005 on circulars and reports to their constituents.  The House informed the complainant that disclosure of the requested information would breach the Data Protection Act and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 40 of the Act (Personal information). The Commissioner has decided that the House breached section 1 of the Act (General right of access to information held by public authorities) by not clarifying to the complainant the information held in relation to the request.  He has further decided that the information held is not exempt from disclosure under section 40 and therefore requires it to be released. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50130517

Case Ref: FS50081562 
Date: 25/03/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested details of the expense statements submitted by Andrew Marr and Natasha Kaplinsky. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemption under section 12 of the Act to withhold the information from the complainant. After a careful evaluation of the nature of the request, and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has incorrectly applied Schedule 1 and that the information is held for purposes other than those of journalism, art and literature. The Commissioner also finds that the exemption under section 12 is engaged and suggests that the BBC contact the complainant in order to refine his request in line with its duty under section 16 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50081562

Case Ref: FS50084357
Date: 25/03/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant requested the names and salary details of the top 25 presenters at the BBC. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the investigation the BBC, without prejudice to their position on the derogation, also sought to rely on exemptions under the Act to withhold the information. The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that the information requested falls within the scope of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the BBC’s application of the exemptions and found that the names and salaries of the presenters are exempt under section 40 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50084357

Case Ref: FS50177655
Date: 25/03/2008
Public Authority: The Commission for Local Administration in England
Summary: On 11 September 2007 the complainant requested from The Commission for Local Administration in England (“CLAE”) copies of legal guidance provided to it by the Department for Communities and Local Government (the “DCLG”), the CLAE’s external auditors and/or the Information Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) relating to its handling of requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the “EIR”) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”). He also asked “what special research have these three bodies conducted in relation to the three information laws specifically for the Commission for Local Administration?”. The CLAE refused the request on 13 September 2007, upholding its decision on internal review on 31 October 2007, stating that it had neither received any information of the type requested, nor had any special research of the type stated been conducted. The CLAE acknowledged that it did hold copies of some of the guidance published by the Commissioner, but applied the exemption in section 21 to this information since it was publicly accessible on the Commissioner’s website. The complainant asked the Commissioner to investigate the handling of his request by CLAE, and in particular its application of the exemption in section 21 of the Act. The Commissioner has investigated the complaint and agrees that, in its handling of this information request, the CLAE has complied with the requirements of the Act in all respects. He agrees that section 21 was applied correctly and therefore does not order any steps to be taken by CLAE. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 21 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50177655

Case Ref: FS50080372
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police
Summary: The complainant requested information regarding an investigation carried out by the public authority into allegations that the decision to grant planning permission for ground close to the complainant’s property was made improperly. The public authority refused the request, on the basis that Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner finds that this exception is engaged and that the public interest favours the maintenance of the exception. The Commissioner also finds that the public authority failed to comply with Regulation 14 when initially refusing the request, but that remedial action is not required.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 12(5)(b) – Complaint not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50080372

Case Ref: FS50094891
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: Commonwealth Development Corporation (‘CDC’)
Summary: The public authority, CDC, is a government owned company which invests in private equity funds focused on emerging markets in developing parts of the world. The complainant requested the contract between CDC and Actis, one of its fund managers. CDC refused to disclose the contract on the basis that it was exempt under sections 41 and 43 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that whilst the majority of the sections of the contract are exempt on the basis of section 43(1), some of the sections are not exempt by virtue of either section 41 or 43 and therefore the Commissioner has ordered these sections to be disclosed.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50094891

Case Ref: FS50155312
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: The Department for Work and Pensions
Summary: The complainant requested information relating to the payments of his late Uncle’s pensions. The public authority provided some information but withheld some under section 40 and stated that the remaining information was not held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed the information withheld under section 40 as it concluded this exemption was not applicable. The Commissioner’s investigation found that the remaining information was not held. However, the Commissioner has found the public authority were in breach of section 10 and 17 of the Act. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155312

Case Ref: FS50165354
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: Doncaster College
Summary: The complainant requested information from Doncaster College concerning reports of its investigation of allegations made against its former principal.  The college refused this request under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  The Commissioner considers that the requested information is the personal data of the former principal and of other data subjects and that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle.  The Commissioner therefore finds section 40(2) has been applied correctly to the majority of the requested information.  The Commissioner has concluded that the college incorrectly relied on section 40(2) in respect of the details of Mr Gates’ severance payment.  He therefore requires this information to be provided to the complainant. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Partially upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50165354

Case Ref: FS50133293
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: Hounslow Primary Care Trust
Summary: The complainant submitted a request to Hounslow Primary Care Trust (‘the Trust’) for communications between it and a number of named organisations and individuals in relation to the care provided to his late father-in-law and issues concerning a particular nursing home. It took the Trust nearly seven months to respond to this request. The complaint alleged that this response did not include all of the information the Trust held covered the by scope of this request. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the Trust located a significant number of further documents and disclosed these to the complainant. However, the Trust relied on sections 31, 41 and 42 to withhold a small number of these documents and section 40 to redact the names of various individuals. The Commissioner has concluded that Trust was incorrect to withhold documents on the basis of section 31, but correct to withhold documents on the basis of section 41 and 42. The Commissioner has also concluded that the Trust was incorrect to withhold the majority of the individuals’ names on the basis of section 40. The Commissioner has concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the Trust does not hold any further documents falling within the scope of the request. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in handling this request the Trust committed numerous procedural breaches of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 41 – Not Upheld, FOI 42 – Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50133293

Case Ref: FS50119963
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust
Summary: The complainant requested the names of the doctors who had previously worked in a particular hospital department between the years 2000 and 2004. The public authority initially refused the request on the basis of section 12 but in subsequent correspondence confirmed that it was withdrawing its reliance on section 12 and instead refused to disclose the information citing section 40 of the Act. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was correct to withhold the information on the basis of section 40 but breached section 17 of the Act by failing to provide the complainant with an adequate refusal notice within 20 working days of the date of her request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50119963

Case Ref: FER0118853
Date: 19/03/2008
Public Authority: Sutton and East Surrey Water Plc
Summary: The complainant requested information in relation to works carried out by the public authority. The public authority initially responded by stating that it did not believe the EIR applied. Following the Commissioner’s intervention, the public authority accepted that the EIR did apply to this request and released most of the information to the complainant. The public authority also informed the complainant that some of the information was not held and that it was withholding other information by applying regulation 13 (personal data). The Commissioner upheld the application of Regulation 13 but found that the public authority had responded later than 20 working days after receipt of the request. The Commissioner also found that the public authority had breached the EIR by failing to offer the complainant an internal review of the request.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5(2) – Complaint upheld, EIR 13 – Complaint not upheld, EIR 14(2) – Complaint upheld, EIR(5) – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0118853

Case Ref: FS50122585
Date: 18/03/2008
Public Authority: Cumbria County Council
Summary: The complainant requested details surrounding the council’s decision to close a literacy centre in Carlisle. The council clarified that it held the information requested but that it was exempt from disclosure under the exemption in section 36 of the Act (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that it was unreasonable for the council to apply the exemption to some information, and that the exemption is applicable to other information, but that the public interest in maintaining the exemption does not outweigh that in disclosing the information in this instance.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint Partially Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50122585

Case Ref: FS50069392
Date: 18/03/2008
Public Authority: Department of Health
Summary: The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Department of Health (the “Department”) did not deal with the complainant’s request in accordance with Part I of the Act in that it failed to comply with its obligations under section 1(1). The Commissioner found that the Department incorrectly applied the exemptions under sections 36(2)(c), 40(2) and 44 as a basis for withholding information pertaining to the number of 11,12 and 13 year olds that had abortions in England and Wales in 2003 and 2004.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 36 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50069392

Case Ref: FS50114241
Date: 18/03/2008
Public Authority: South Downs Waste Services Ltd
Summary: The complainant wrote to both Veolia ES South Downs Ltd and South Downs Waste Services Ltd to request information regarding a Best Practice Environmental Option assessment in respect of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Integrated Waste Management Contract. Both companies refused the request on the grounds that they are not obliged to comply with requests for information under the Environmental Information Regulations. The Commissioner has considered this matter and is satisfied that South Downs Waste Services Ltd constitutes a public authority for the purposes of EIR and that by failing to comply with the request it breached regulation 5(1). During the course of his investigation South Downs Waste Services Ltd disclosed a copy of a document entitled “Initial Qualitative BPEO Appraisal of the Onyx Aurora Proposals & Scoping Exercise for Detailed Quantitative BPEO” and the Commissioner is satisfied that it holds no further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken. (N.B. Throughout this Decision Notice there are references to Veolia ES South Downs Ltd, Veolia Environmental Services Plc and South Downs Waste Services Ltd, these are all part of the Veolia group of companies. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Commissioner believes that EIR apply to South Downs Waste Services Ltd. Where references are made to contact with Veolia ES South Downs Ltd the Commissioner considers this company to be acting on behalf of South Downs Waste Services Ltd for the purpose of dealing with this complaint.)
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50114241

Case Ref: FS50086170
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
Summary: The complainant, an employee of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), sought information from ACAS  relating to an Assessment and Development Centre he had attended to help determine suitability for promotion. Although a substantial amount of information was released to the complainant ACAS withheld some information under section 43 of the Act on the grounds that release of it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it). The Commissioner has concluded that ACAS applied this exemption correctly in respect of the prejudice that would be caused to the commercial interests of the company, and thus agreed that the information could be withheld under section 43, although he did not think that section 43 could be applied in respect of ACAS’s own commercial interests. The Commissioner also found that ACAS did not respond to the complainant’s request in compliance with section 17 of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086170

Case Ref: FS50086077
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Summary: The complainant asked the BBC how much the new weather graphics cost. The BBC refused to provide the information on the basis that it was not a public authority in relation to the complainant’s request because the information was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature within the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. As an alternative argument the BBC has applied the exemption under section 43 (commercial interests) to withhold the information from the complainant. After a careful evaluation of the nature of the request, and the relevant provisions of the Act, the Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC has incorrectly applied Schedule 1 and that the information is held for purposes other than those of journalism, art and literature. However, the Commissioner finds that the exemption under section 43 is engaged and that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50086077

Case Ref: FS50070465
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation ('BBC’)
Summary: The complainant requested details of the BBC’s financial agreements with both Graham Norton and Malcolm Young. The BBC refused to disclose this information on the basis that it was held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. Having considered the circumstances of this case the Commissioner has concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule I derogation and that this information falls within the Act. However, the Commissioner has concluded that details of Mr Norton’s agreement are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40 of the Act. Furthermore, the Commissioner has also concluded that details of Mr Young’s agreement with the BBC are exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 40, the only exception being the salary band within which Mr Young’s salary fell.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint partially upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50070465

Case Ref: FS50132179
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust
Summary: The complainant made a request to the Trust under the Act for copies of staff witness statements. These statements had been made in regard to a serious untoward incident involving the complainant’s late husband. The Trust initially refused to disclose this information citing the exemptions listed at sections 40 and 41 of the Act. In later correspondence the Trust also cited section 30. During the course of the investigation the Trust confirmed to the Commissioner that it was relying upon sections 31, 36, 40 and 41. After considering the circumstances of the case the Commissioner decided that section 40 applied to the information in question. Therefore he has decided that the information should not be disclosed. As he has decided that section 40 applied, the Commissioner did not go on to consider the application of sections 31, 36 and 41. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50132179

Case Ref: FER0089559
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs
Summary: The complainant requested information from Defra in connection with the proposals for a South Downs National Park. Defra provided part of the information sought, but withheld much of the remaining information on the basis that the request involved the disclosure of internal communications and that the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR applied. Defra considered that the remainder of the information should be withheld, on the basis that it was protected by legal professional privilege and the exception in regulation 12(5)(b) was applicable. In the light of the timing of the complainant’s information request in relation to the National Park designation process the Commissioner found that Defra was entitled to rely on the exceptions in regulation 12(4)(e) and 12 (5)(b). The Commissioner nevertheless found that there was a small amount of information in relation to which the  public interest in maintaining the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) was outweighed by the public interest in disclosure at the time of the information request, and that this should now be released. The Commissioner also found that Defra had acted in breach of regulations 14(2) and (3) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 14 – Complaint upheld, EIR 12 – complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FER0089559

Case Ref: FS50155332
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: HM Treasury
Summary: The complainant asked the public authority for all information which it held concerning the resignation of Sir David Varney from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), including the background to it, and similar information regarding his appointment as the Chancellor’s adviser on Transformational Government. The Treasury’s response was that details of the resignation and appointment had been set out in a publicly available press notice and written response to Parliamentary Questions, and that it held no other relevant information. The Commissioner decided that there was no evidence that any additional information was held by the public authority and that accordingly there had been no breach of section 1 of the Act
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50155332

Case Ref: FS50157444
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: Northumbria Police
Summary: The complainant sought reports made by officers of Northumbria Police concerning allegations he made against a District Judge.  The complainant also requested copies of forensic reports and correspondence held by the police in relation to his complaint.  The Commissioner has examined the requested information and had determined that it is the complainant’s personal data.  Consequently the Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(1) of the Act and Northumbria Police was therefore not in fact obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act.  The Commissioner considers that the police should have treated the request as a subject access request under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. He has completed a separate assessment under section 42 of that Act. The outcome of the assessment was communicated to the complainant in a separate letter dated 14 January 2008. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50157444

Case Ref: FS50142678
Date: 17/03/2008
Public Authority: The Scotland Office
Summary: The complainant requested access to two files on Needs Assessment Studies held by the National Archives of Scotland. The Scotland Office refused to disclose this information under sections 29 and 35 of the Act.  The Commissioner has investigated and found that section 35 is engaged but that the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner also found that section 29 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclosure the requested information within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 29 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50142678

Case Ref: FS50131694
Date: 13/03/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation ('BBC’)
Summary: The complainant requested from the BBC details as to what type of accommodation was used by BBC staff sent to cover the World Cup 2006, what type of travel was used and how much the staff and presenters were paid. The BBC refused to provide this information on the basis that it was held for the purpose of journalism, art or literature. During the course of the investigation the BBC also sought to rely on exemptions under the Act to withhold the information.  The Commissioner has investigated and concluded that the BBC misapplied the Schedule 1 derogation and that the information requested falls within the scope of the Act. The Commissioner investigated the BBC’s application of the exemptions and found that the exact salaries of the presenters are exempt under section 40 of the Act. However the Commissioner found that the details of salary bands paid to staff were not exempt under section 40. The Commissioner also found that section 43 was not engaged for the remaining information on accommodation and travel costs. The Commissioner requires the BBC to disclose the withheld information that is not exempt to the complainant within 35 calendar days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40- Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50131694

Case Ref: FS50114962 
Date: 12/03/2008
Public Authority: Devon & Cornwall Constabulary
Summary: The complainant requested copies of the police statements and pocket books of three officers involved in an incident and also a copy of the statement made by a third party involved in the same incident. The public authority refused to release the information on the basis it was exempt under sections 30(1)(b), 40(1), 40(2) and 41 of the Act. The Commissioner has determined that the public authority was not obliged to confirm or deny whether it held the requested information by virtue of section 40(5) of the Act.  This is on the basis that, if the information was held, it would constitute the complainant’s personal data and would be exempt under section 40(1). He has therefore not considered the remaining exemptions. The complaint is not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50114962

Case Ref: FS50119029
Date: 12/03/2008
Public Authority: House of Lords Appointments Commission
Summary: The complainant requested the minutes of meetings of the Commission and any papers distributed to Commission members. The Commission disclosed some information but withheld some under sections 36, 37, 40 and 42. The Commissioner investigated and found that sections 36 and 37 are engaged but that in respect of section 36 and 37 the public interest favours disclosure of the information. The Commissioner found that section 42 is engaged and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption; and that section 40 is not engaged. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the information withheld under sections 36, 37 and 40 within 35 calendar days of this notice. This decision is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Partially Upheld, FOI 36 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 37 – Complaint Upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50119029

Case Ref: FS50172096
Date: 11/03/2008
Public Authority: Driving Standards Agency
Summary: The complainant made a request for information on the discussions about two specific rules relating to cyclists in the Highway Code. The public authority withheld the information requested by virtue of the exemption contained in section 35(1)(a). During the course of the investigation the public authority further relied on the exemption contained in section 42 in respect of one of the documents containing the information requested. On considering the case the Commissioner is satisfied that both exemptions are engaged and the public interest favours maintaining both exemptions.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 35 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 42 – Compliant not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50172096

Case Ref: FS50068391
Date: 10/03/2008
Public Authority: British Broadcasting Corporation ('BBC’)
Summary: The complainant submitted two requests asking for copies of Alan Yentob’s charge card statement and an itemised breakdown of his expense claims for the period 2001 to 2004. The BBC provided some information in response to both requests, but withheld details of certain payments on the basis that these payments related to activities falling outside the scope of the Act. The BBC also withheld details of some payments contained on the charge card on the basis of section 40 because they related to Mr Yentob’s personal expenditure. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the information covered by the requests falls within the scope of the Act. However, the Commissioner accepts that the payments concerning Mr Yentob’s personal expenditure are exempt on the basis of section 40. The Commissioner has also concluded that names of the third parties included on the expense claims are exempt on the basis of section 40. However, the Commissioner does not accept that disclosure of the other details of each payment (namely the amount of the claim, the date of the claim and a brief description of the claim) are exempt on the basis of section 43 and therefore these must be disclosed to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI – 1 Complaint upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint not upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint not upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50068391

Case Ref: FS50141012
Date: 03/03/2008
Public Authority: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Summary: The complainant made a request for information to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (the “Council”) on 14 October 2005.  The Council refused to provide the information requested on the grounds that it was exempt under section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the “Act”).  This decision was communicated to the complainant on 11 September 2006.  Owing to the decision to withhold the information being taken at a high level within the Council, the Commissioner did not require an internal review to be carried out.  During the course of the investigation, the Council suggested that section 22 of the Act may be applicable.  The Commissioner has concluded that the Council incorrectly applied section 43(2) of the Act to the requested information, and has determined that it may not be withheld under section 22.  He therefore requires the Council to disclose the requested information.  The Commissioner further finds that the Council failed to comply with section 17 when issuing a refusal notice in respect of this request. 
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint upheld, FOI 43 – Complaint upheld.
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50141012